Embodied Carbon: A call to the building industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The demand for building materials will increase drastically in the following decades due to urbanization and population growth. Buildings generate almost 40% of annual global carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions contributing to human-induced climate change. Of this fraction, 11% is associated with material production and building construction, and 28% is contributed to the operational activities of a building (heating, cooling, lighting). One primary measure of the climate impact of buildings is embodied carbon (EC). This paper aims to find the recent developments in relation to embodied carbon within the building industry. To achieve this goal, a literature review was conducted to study the EC concept concerning materials and construction. The article explores and presents the state-of-the-art of diverse research and development related to this concept, focusing primarily on (1) the carbon cycle and the building sector, (2) EC benchmarking, (3) bio-based materials, and (4) other low-carbon material alternatives such as the development of carbon capture technologies. The objective of this paper is to summarize current and emerging trends as well as research priorities and tools to inform designers and engineers and facilitate their decision-making during the design process. It also aims to facilitate in advancing the creation of regulations and policies toward natural-based material solutions and the development of low-carbon high-tech material technologies deemed central for a sustainable built environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".